Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 7/16/20 11:24 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> More ambitiously, we could just adopt 2.69b in HEAD and see what happens,
>> planning to revert only if things break. The cost to that is that
>> committers who want to commit configure.ac changes would have to install
>> 2.69b. But they'd be having to install 2.70 whenever we move to that,
>> anyway, so I'm not sure that's a big cost.
> I don't think it's a big cost. IIRC for quite some years we had to keep
> 2 or 3 versions of autoconf to cover all the live branches.
Yeah, everyone who's had a commit bit for more than a few years
has a workflow that allows for using different autoconf versions
for different branches. And if the autoconf crew get their act
back together and start making regular releases again, that will
become the norm for us again too --- so the newer committers had
better get set up to handle this if they aren't already.
regards, tom lane